examining michigan’s recall election la · examining michigan’s recall election law crc webinar...
TRANSCRIPT
Examining Michigan’s Recall Election Law
CRC WebinarJune 14, 2012
Eric LupherDirector of Local Affairs
Citizens Research Council of Michigan
• Founded in 1916
• Statewide
• Nonpartisan
• Private not-for-profit
• Promotes sound policy for state and local governments through factual research
• Relies on charitable contributions from Michigan foundations, businesses, organizations, and individuals
Ripped from the Headlines
Recalls sought in Bloomfield Hills Recall petitions OK'd for 4 on boardPetitions filed to recall councilFour Bridgeport Township leaders will face May recall electionRecall election for Parma Township supervisor set November vote targeted for recall of 3 Portage schools trusteesRecall Troy Mayor Janice Daniels campaign submits petition signatures to elections division
What is a Recall Election
• Recall – Right of citizens to call for an election outside of the established cycle to ask whether a specific elected official(s) should be removed and replaced.
• Impeachment – legal process for removing an elected executive official for violating a law
• Expulsion – a legislative process for removing an elected legislative official
Constitutional Wording
• Article II, Section 8 of Michigan Constitution:
Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.
Recall in Michigan
• First introduced to Michigan with a 1913 amendment to the 1908 Constitution
• “The sufficiency of reasons or grounds for a recall shall be a political … question” added with the adoption of the 1963 Constitution
• Details of process codified in the Michigan Election Law
Are Recalls a Problem in Michigan?
• Perception by some that they interfere with the effectiveness and functioning of governments
• Perception that they create incentives for elected officials to avoid taking actions that may have negative short-term consequences but are favorable for the governments in the long-term
• Perception that they are being used more frequently
Plausible Reasons that large numbers of Michigan Elected Officials are subject to Recall Elections
1. Sheer number of elected officials in Michigan higher than in most other states
2. Process spelled out in Michigan law lends itself to more frequent use of recalls
Path #1
Exploring whether we have more recalls because we have so many elected officials
Original CRC Research
• Michigan recall data has never been aggregated in common dataset
• CRC surveyed municipal and county clerks• Collected election data for 2000-2011
• Name of Official• Office• Stated grounds for recall• Outcome
• www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2010s/2012/rpt379.html
What we found:
• At least 457 state and local elected officials faced recalls between 2000 and 2011
• Generally an upward trend• Peak of 87 officials subjected to recall
votes in 2006• Higher numbers in 2002, 2006, and 2010
reflecting mid-term for most elected officials in Michigan with 4-year terms
Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall in Michigan, 2000-2011
6664
2827
39
87
232426
49
17
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Num
ber
of E
lect
ed O
ffic
ials
Distribution of Officials that Faced Recalls, by Government Type, 2000-2011
State0.4%
County1.5%
School District8.6%
City and Village24.8%
Township64.6%
Comparison States
• California• Generally regarded as the recall state
• Washington• Have had some prominent recall elections • Because of their provisions requiring grounds
for recalling officials• Louisiana
• The highest signature requirement. (Provides some perspective on what making the signature requirement more difficult might do to the number of recalls.)
• Arizona • A lot of recall elections • Some of those have been prominent
Number of Officials Facing Recall Vote in Selected States, by Year, 2000-2011
18
31
4
87
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Nu
mbe
r of
Off
icia
ls
Arizona
California
Louisiana
Michigan
Washington
Average Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall Election each Year, 2000-2011
9.92
18.17
1.25
38.08
0.58
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Arizona California Louisiana Michigan Washington
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of O
ffic
ials
Number and Distribution of Recall Eligible Officials in Michigan, by Government Type
State, 184, 1%
County, 1,296, 7%
School District, 3,990, 22%
City and Village, 4,743, 26%
Township, 7,348, 41%
Special District, 568, 3%
Average Number of Elected Officials Facing Recall per Year as Percentage of Total Eligible Officials, 2000-2011
0.30
0.10
0.03
0.21
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Arizona California Louisiana Michigan Washington
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of E
lect
ed O
ffic
ials
Conclusion to Path #1
Because Michigan has high number of elected officials relative to other states (all except judges are subject to recalls), we tend to have more recall elections
Path #2
Exploring whether we have so many recalls because the process created by Michigan law lends itself to more frequent use of recalls
6 Elements of Recall Models
1. Whether or not grounds for recall are specified
2. The number of petition signatures required
3. The time period allotted for collecting petition signatures
4. The type of public official who can be recalled
5. The type of recall election
6. The portion of the officer’s term when recall is possible
Grounds for Recall
AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT,
ID, IL, LA, ME, MA, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, TN, TX, WV, WI, WY
Grounds not Expressly Stated or Sufficiency a Political Question
AK, FL, GA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NM, RI, SD, VA, WA
Eligible Grounds Defined in Law(lack of fitness, malfeasance, neglect of duties, corruption, misconduct, violation of oath of office, drunkenness,
Role of Elected Officials
• Should elected officials act as a trustee?• Vote his/her own opinion
• Should official perform as a delegate of the people he/she is representing?
• Vote according to wishes of his/her constituency
• Complicated by dynamics of often close elections• How is it possible to represent 100% of
constituency when 49% voted for someone else?
Stated Grounds for Recall Elections in Michigan, 2000-2011
Roughly 1/3 for Misconduct• Financial irresponsibility, ineffective leadership, incompetence,
and violation of Open Meetings Act • Elm River Township Clerk and Trustee, 11/8/11 election
• Violated the Open Meetings Act, failed to protect and produce public records, misrepresented and gave false information to the general public, committed ethics violations and took retaliation against citizens who made FOIA requests
• Briley Township Clerk and 2 Trustees, 8/2/11 election
• Conduct unbecoming a public official and a criminal charge• Hill Township Supervisor, 11/2/10 election
• Violated the Open Meetings Act• Entire Dorr Township Board, 5/4/10 election
Stated Grounds for Recall Elections in Michigan, 2000-2011
Roughly 1/3 for Non-Financial Policy Disagreements
• Voted in favor of banning dogs from parks• Hagar Township supervisor and 2 trustees, 2/22/11 election
• Voted against authorizing ORVs to travel at less than 25 mph and not interfere with traffic
• Norman Township treasurer, clerk, & trustee, 11/3/09 election
• Position on water service in the township• Edenville Township supervisor, clerk, & 2 trustees, 5/6/08 election
• Voted in favor of rezoning 14 acres from single-family residential to mixed-used development
• Kochville Township supervisor, clerk, & 2 trustees, 8/8/06 election
Stated Grounds for Recall Elections in Michigan, 2000-2011
Roughly 1/3 for Financial Policy Disagreements• Failed promise to reduce the board's pay by 30% and
endangered public safety by laying off police officers• Genesee Township supervisor, clerk, & 2 trustees, 11/8/11 election
• Voted to increase Real Estate Tax• Grosse Pointe Shores mayor and 2 council members, 5/4/10
election
• Voted to privatize school transportation services• 3 Benton Harbor Area School District board members, 2/23/10
election
• Voted in favor of 2007 House Bill 5194 to increase the income tax to 4.35 percent and 2007 House Bill 5198 to impose new 6 percent taxes on certain services
• Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, 11/4/08 election
Broad Authority to Call for Recalls
• Michigan recall law does not limit grounds for recall to malfeasance, failure to perform duties of office, etc.• Greater propensity of citizens to use
recall in Michigan• Poor economic performance over past 10
years has increased level of voter discontent
Policy Analysis
• Elected officials as trustees or delegates• Voting own opinion or representing
constituency
• Roughly 2/3 of recall elections related to policy disagreements
• Restricting recalls to misconduct would require constitutional amendment
• No constituency for petition initiative• Initiated by legislature or wait for
constitutional convention
Petition Signature Requirements
KSAR, NENMALAK, AZ, CO, MN, NV, ND,
WA
RI, OH
40%35%33.3%30%25%15%
Percentage of Votes Cast in Previous Election for Office
MI, WIOR, ILME
25%15%10%
Percentage of Votes Cast in Official’s District in Previous Gubernatorial Election
LAMO, NJ, WYID, WVSD, GAMT, CA
33.3%25%20%15%10%
Percentage of Eligible or Registered Voters in Official’s District
Period for Petition Circulation
AL, AR, ME, MN, NM, ND, TN, VA,
WV, WY
WACA, NJILAZKS LA
MIMT OH OR RI
AK CO ID MO NV SD WI
GANE FL
Indefinite18016015012090604530
Officials Subject to Recall
RIHighest State Elective Offices only
NMCounty Elective Offices Only
MN, NDState and County Elective Offices only
FLCounty and Municipal Offices only
AL, AR, CT, ME, MA, MO, NH, NC, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, WV, WY
Certain Non-County Local Offices only
ILGovernor and Local Offices Only
AK, ID, KS, LA, MI, WAAll Elective Offices Except Judicial Officers
AZ, CA, CO, GA, MT, NE, NV, NJ, OR, VA, WI
All Elective Offices
Distribution of Officials that Faced Recalls, by Government Type, 2000-2011
State0.4%
County1.5%
School District8.6%
City and Village24.8%
Township64.6%
Recall Election Process
CA, CO, OHAZ, NV, ND, SD, WI, WY
AL, GA, IL,
LA, MI, MN, NJ, OR, RI
AK, AR, ID, KS, ME, NE, TN, WA
Two Questions
One Question
Separate ElectionAppointed
SimultaneousBinary
Outcome of Recall Election in Michigan, 2000 - 2011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
Recall Successful
Recall Defeated
Recall Immunity Periods
90/90TN
0/190OH
0/180LA, MN, NM, WA
120/200KS
180/180
GA, MI, NE
AL, CO, IL, ND, SD, VA, WV, WY
60/0MT
90/0ID
120/0AK, ME
180/0AZ, AR, MO, NV,
OR
90/180CA
360/0FL, NJ,
WI
180/360RI
None6090120180320-190360
Days
540
Arguments against Recall • Cause elected officials to always be looking over
their shoulders
• Disincentive for making hard decisions
• Weakens the electoral process
• Calls into question ideals of democracy
• Greater opportunity for special interest groups to influence government actions
• Actions following recalls may be worse than original “objectionable” actions
Arguments for Maintaining Recall
• Helps promote democracy
• Makes government more responsive and responsible to citizens
• Encourages elected officials to maintain a minimum level of conduct
• Recalls employed as political power-plays rarely work
• Voters predisposed against recalling officials• High standards employed in process keep
recalls difficult to carry out
Constitutional Amendment needed if goal is fewer recalls
• 2 provisions tend to allow more recall elections in Michigan than other states
• All elected officials except judicial officers eligible to be recalled
• Sufficiency of grounds for recall a political question
• Both included in constitutional language• Other provisions only in state law
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan is supported by gifts and grants of all sizes coming from many different donors including:
• Foundations• Businesses • Organizations• Individual Citizens like you
We hope you will consider supporting CRC. For more information or to donate, contact us at:
Citizens Research Council of Michigan38777 Six Mile RoadLivonia, MI 48152
(734) 542-8001 www.crcmich.org
